Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

You are here

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS NORTHERN IDAHO AGENCY LAPWAI, IDAHO and LOCAL 265, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES Case No. 90 FSIP 111

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS NORTHERN IDAHO AGENCY LAPWAI, IDAHO and LOCAL 265, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

)

In the Matter of )

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR )

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS )

NORTHERN IDAHO AGENCY )

LAPWAI, IDAHO )

and )

LOCAL 265, NATIONAL FEDERATION )

OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES )

)

)

) Case No. 90 FSIP 111

DECISION AND ORDER

Local 265, National Federation of Federal Employees (Union),
filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses
Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse under section 7119
of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute)
between it and the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Northern Idaho Agency, Lapwai, Idaho (Employer).

The Panel determined that the impasse should be resolved
pursuant to written submissions from the parties with the Panel to
take whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the impasse.
Submissions were made pursuant to these procedures and the Panel
has considered the entire record.

BACKGROUND

The Employer's mission is to provide services to the Nez
Pierce, Coeur D'Alene, and Kootenai Indian tribes whose members
live on approximately 158,000 acres of reservation land in northern
Idaho. The Employer provides law enforcement, social and
environmental services, and assistance in managing forestry
programs on the reservations. Employees are part of a nationwide

consolidated bargaining unit of approximately 10,000 in the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA); the Northern Idaho Agency employs about 47
General Schedule and Wage Grade employees who hold positions such
as law enforcement officer, forester, secretary, clerk, teller, and
social worker.

The master collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between

the National Federation of Federal Employees and BIA, which was

to expire in May 1989, has been extended until its successor is

executed. There is also in effect a November 16, 1988, supplemental
agreement to the master CBA which authorizes the parties at the
local levels to negotiate over alternative work schedules (AWS).

The dispute herein arose during negotiations over AWS

pursuant to the supplemental agreement, and concerns, essentially,
whether employees should be permitted to experiment with a variety
of work schedules.

ISSUE AT IMPASSE

The parties disagree over whether they should conduct a

work schedule experiment where employees would be given the

option of working, in addition to the current schedule of 5

8-hour days per week, a 4-day workweek consisting of 10-hour

days or a schedule with flexible starting hours.

1. The Union's Position

The Union proposes to conduct an experiment during Daylight

Saving Time beginning in 1990, whereby in addition to the standard
8-hour workday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., employees could request to
work either a 10-hour day, 4-day workweek, or an 8-hour day with
flexible hours; the lunch period for the latter two options could
be up to 2 hours, provided employees work the requisite number of
hours in a day under their schedule. The Employer retains authority
to approve or disapprove work schedules; in the event of inadequate
coverage under a 10-hour-day schedule, the employee would revert to
a flexible work schedule. Conflicts in scheduling are to be
resolved informally, but if no agreement, the matter would be
referred to a three-person Adjustment Board consisting of a
management and Union representative, and alternatively, a third
management or Union representative. Participation in flexitime or
a 10-hour schedule could be terminated when a decline in staffing
warranted different coverage, or an employee repeatedly failed to
comply with the provisions of the selected plan. At the conclusion
of the trial period, the parties would renegotiate the agreement.

The Union argues that a 10-hour-day schedule may facilitate

the delivery of services to the tribes and other members of the

public, since employees would be available an additional 2 hours on
their scheduled workdays. Those employees who must travel to the
reservations would be able to spend longer periods of time there
providing services, instead of having to conclude their travel and
contacts within a shorter 8-hour

particularly Portland, Oregon, the site of the Area Office, and
Washington, D.C., a 10-hour day would increase the overlapping
workhours, thereby providing greater opportunity for doing
business. Coverage for those on a day off under a 10-hour-day
schedule could be provided, since on numerous occasions individuals
in one branch or job have covered for those who are in different
branches and classification series. Finally, should there be a
coverage problem, the proposal provides a safeguard for management
allowing it to terminate or alter an employee's participation in a
4-lo schedule.

2. The Employer's Position

Under the Employer's proposal, all employees would work fixed
hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a 1-hour lunch break. During the
period from May 1 through October 31 of each year, however, field
crews and others in field operations could be required to work a
10-hour-day, 4-day workweek schedule.

In support of its position, the Employer argues that there are
too few employees to provide services adequately under a
10-hour-day schedule. In this regard, the absence of any one
employee in a branch, which often consists of only one or two
persons, would adversely affect the delivery of services to the
tribes. It is imperative that employees be available 5 days a week
since tribal members often travel great distances from the
reservations to the agency headquarters in Lapwai for services.
Moreover, AWS was discontinued in 1983 because of coverage
problems, and it would be more difficult to reinstate it
successfully now when there are even fewer employees available to
perform the work. Limiting a 10-hour workday to field employees, of
which there are approximately 10, would help the agency better
provide services, since it would allow additional time to travel to
sites and perform work during "the season" when most roadwork is
performed and forest fires occur.

CONCLUSIONS

Having fully considered the parties' evidence and arguments in
this case, we conclude that a compromise solution should be
adopted. We are persuaded by the Employer's argument that a
10-hour-day schedule would not be feasible for the majority of
employees because it would exacerbate the current coverage problems
in the office, and thus jeopardize service to the clientele.
Accordingly, the parties should adopt the Employer's proposal. We
note, however, that the Employer does not raise objections to-that
portion of the Union's proposal which calls for an experiment with
flexible starting hours. Therefore, the parties also should
conduct an experiment utilizing such scheduling, and negotiate over
the procedures to be followed including the duration of the
experiment, the flexibands, and which employees should take part in
it. In our view, a trial period should provide the parties with
information to determine whether flexitime should be continued
permanently, and on what bases.

ORDER

Pursuant to the authority vested in it by section 7119 of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and because of
the failure of the parties to resolve their dispute during the
course of proceedings instituted pursuant to section 2471.6(a)(2)
of the Panel's regulations, the Federal Service Impasses Panel
under section 2471.11(a) of its regulations hereby orders the
following:

The parties shall adopt the Employer's proposal, as modified
to provide for an experiment with flexible workhours, and negotiate
over procedures for implementation of the experiment.